Wherever you are getting your information from, I am afraid you are being misled. I refer you to the office test fire conducted as part of the Cardington experiments in 1998, which demonstrated that largely wood and paper-based fires, can easily send atmospheric temperatures 10 cm below roof decking above 1000 C and sustain this temperature for several minutes, and remain over 800 C for over half an hour. This same test showed temperatures 1.8 m below the decking to rise as high as 1200 C, and remain above 1000 C for ten minutes. Modern offices, containing more plastics, are seen to reach even higher temperatures of up to 1300 C. They do not only attain these temperatures during a “flashover.” NIST itself gathered similar results by conducting its own full-scale fire test, found in NCSTAR1-5E, in which a series of cubicle offices were built in a faithful recreation of a WTC floor, and set alight with carefully measured quantities of jet fuel. The results from this experiment, seen in Figures 6-6 through 6-12 of this report, show temperatures peaking well above 1000 C for substantial periods of time.

What NIST predicted in the WTC fires is relatively modest compared to these observed limits, as described in NCSTAR1-5F, Section 6.6.2:
The simulations and the visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 C at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 C to 800 C on floors with active fires.
In other words, the NIST model predicts and is dependent upon fires that are completely within the realm of expected behaviour sizeable fires because the jet fuel and damage spread them rapidly but typical with respect to temperature.

Steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat, and the trusses would have been heated up along their length in the fires, and only connected to the rest of the structure at their ends, to other steel itself in the fire. Suggesting it could not heat up enough is fanciful.

NIST did not abandon the tests, the tests were for the purpose of testing the designed structure, not the structure after the impacts. If they had been for that purpose, they would hardly have been carried out with the fireproofing in place.

...
i have no problem myself believing fire can cause total collapses or partial collapses, but i also have trouble believing fire can cause all the supporting columns to fail at the same time...

But why do you believe they all failed at the same time?

Because the collapse looked like a CD, and CD has the columns fail at the same time?

In fact the E Mechanical Penthouse (massive roof structure, set on a concrete roof) fell into WTC7 several seconds ahead of global collapse. This strongly suggests that core columns on the E side had failed several seconds before global collapse. In fact I'd like to state this more strongly - how can the E Penthouse fall into the building at this time *unless* the core columns had failed several seconds before global collapse ????-

Bear in mind - all we actually *see* is the collapse of the exterior structure. The core had several seconds to be caving in, but out of sight, until the whole structure reached global collapse point.

no your right (i aint getting into an arguement) fire bought down the building, and it looked nothing like a CD.

maybe you do not understand what the supporting columns are? because i said it looks like a controlled demolition where they take out all the supporting columns at the same time. the ones that make the building stand.

i never speculated as to wether there was anything going off prior to that.

but if it was a CD then theres nothing strange in the penthouse falling first.
it could easily of been explosives in other places going of first causing damage inside, prior to all supporting columns being taken out.

or it was fire.

you expect me to think its logical to think it was fire only, when fire has never levelled a steel framed skyscrapper before.

like ive already said, theres a first time for everything, but while ever questions are left unanswered CD cannot be ruled out.

Unseen Damage to the Building
I have never bothered to argue the 25% scooped out figure and won't start now - I'm simply going to let them have it. We cannot prove or disprove that and I don't think it ultimatley makes a big difference - such damage could cause some kind of collapse I'm certain - but not a symetrical collapse. This is clearly the problem NIST have faced in explaining the collapse. So take it - it's a gift - the tower was scopped out 25% on the bottom of the South side. Enjoy.

There isn't much doubt there was significant damage - why be so begrudging over what is surely an established fact? Though I doubt NIST will settle on a certain figure unless they can prove it beyond doubt - they will provide a range of possible damage based on what they have.

Quote:

NIST do indeed have a hypoethesis
I maintain that they do not. The effect of the collapse they have done some good work on - they have highlighted the sequence of column failure - funnily enough they say exactly the same sequence as Jowenko said when he was phoned having had more time to look at the plans. The difference is that he ended the explantion by saying "and this is only possible through controlled demolition" while NISt finished their initial report with [pp] "it is still unclear how the fire and debris damage led to this sequence of events. The damage to the building may have been worse than we first expected".

A hypothesis is linking one set of events to another - showing one to the the cause to the effect of the second. NIST have not managed to do this. They have said X is what happened when the building collapsed Y is what we state as our beleif of what caused X to happen - but we can't work out how Y led to X. Be patient. Until they can show the cause and effect relationship between X and Y it is not a hypothesis - as it cannot be tested and go on to become a theory - it is a statement of beleif. As for "The damage to the building may have been worse than we first expected"...

Well I disagree. What they are saying is that X happened, and they will seek to prove that Y existed to the extent that it caused X. That is a totally fair hypothesis. Your criticism of their hypothesis is that they haven't proved it yet, but that is why it is a hypothesis! All hypotheses are a statement of belief to a certain extent. Regarding a building with established fire and damage which then collapses, is it not reasonable to come up with a hypothesis suggesting that the fire and damage may have caused the collapse?

If NIST prove that a collapse was possible due to fire and damage, and that fire and damage existed to the extent that the collapse could be caused, then they will justifyably say that their hypothesis was proven.

Quote:

The holy grail of the ever-delayed NIST report
To be sure, there is no evidence NIST have which is not in the public realm. So independent experts dealing with the collapse are working with exactly the same materials - the reports and records of the damage - the reports and records of the fire - the plans of the building - the location of the deisel - eye witness reports. Its all been out there for a long time. It was out there when FEMA wrote that fire and debris damage has a low chance of probablity.
All NIST can do, to improve their chances, is increase the damage without any evidence to back it up. Just like with the WTC Towers where 250degrees in their steel tests magically became 700degree in their sim, and 4 to 2 inches sag of their floor assemblies became 42inches sag in their sim - the only route open to NIST to explain away this problem is to ascribe figures to a simulation that will make it work.
So why the treating of it as a holy grail - NIST don't have anything solid which has not been in the public record for a long long time...

You seem to be basically saying NIST will have no new evidence on the basis that they make up their own figures! I see Bushwacker has pulled you up on your criticisms of their previous work. Maybe the integrity of NIST is the only crucial point here - if they cannot be trusted then any report is worthless. If they can be trusted then we can await their report with some expectation.

Quote:

People expected the building to come down
Or was the rumour spread that it would come down to preceed the fact that it was going to? Rather than go into length on this - I'd recomend this article as food for thought:

I'm not a big fan of MacQueen. He points out that many of the witness accounts indicate that firemen were told and accepted that building 7 was going to collapse, rather than base that opinion on their own direct observation. Of course this is not surprising - on hearing such information would every fireman decide to go to building 7 and verify the claims before accepting them? No. So MacQueen is only confirming what would be an utterly rational expectation for the series of events on the day.

MacQueen ponders whether one person may have convinced others that building 7 was going to collapse, in a scenario similar to one mentioned preceding the twin towers' collapse. I don't think that hypothesis bears any scrutiny whatsoever - none of the accounts mention such a person, and a number mention their own experience of their concerns over building 7. Clearly MacQueen would like to invent such a person to avoid putting the blame squarely at firefighters.

I think the important issues still remain unanswered by the truth movement. What do they make of the firefighter accounts that directly relate the experience of predicting or suspecting collapse based on their first-hand observation of building 7? Because clearly there are many, and these are not easily explained away by conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

It is perfectly normal for building collapses to go straight down
Before we get into this one, I'd like to check whether or not you have any kind of evidence or precident for this whatsoever?...

Do you disagree that building collapses normally go straight down? I cite gravity as the principle reason. Surely you can concede this point?

The point is irrelevant because the South and North Towers did not fall down, unlike WTC 7. Instead, successive floors exploded with an energy that cannot be accounted for by gravity because the destruction started too high up for enough kinetic energy from falling to have been acquired to cause the enormous level of pulverisation and general destruction that was observed. To anyone but someone who is still in psychological denial or who has not looked at the video evidence in sufficient depth, this is so obvious that I wish I did not have still to make the point over seven years after it all happened (sigh!).

The point is irrelevant because the South and North Towers did not fall down, unlike WTC 7. Instead, successive floors exploded with an energy that cannot be accounted for by gravity because the destruction started too high up for enough kinetic energy from falling to have been acquired to cause the enormous level of pulverisation and general destruction that was observed. To anyone but someone who is still in psychological denial or who has not looked at the video evidence in sufficient depth, this is so obvious that I wish I did not have still to make the point over seven years after it all happened (sigh!).

My bolding.

What is your evidence of "pulverisation" apart from your subjective interpretation of some videos?

I have not seen that energy argument trotted out for a while now! It is entirely fallacious, of course, depending on an assumption that all the concrete was turned into dust. That is simply not true, the concrete was mostly in chunks and granules, as any close-up of the debris shows. Here is an example:

The point is irrelevant because the South and North Towers did not fall down, unlike WTC 7. Instead, successive floors exploded with an energy that cannot be accounted for by gravity because the destruction started too high up for enough kinetic energy from falling to have been acquired to cause the enormous level of pulverisation and general destruction that was observed. To anyone but someone who is still in psychological denial or who has not looked at the video evidence in sufficient depth, this is so obvious that I wish I did not have still to make the point over seven years after it all happened (sigh!).

The assertion that the collapse initiation was 'too high up' to cause enough energy is a strange idea. Surely the higher the collapse began, the greater potential for energy to be created?

Pulverisation is utterly unproven - the evidence that Sam asks for does not exist. And as Bushwacker illustrates, the actual evidence proves otherwise.

Neither is there any legitimate scientific paper that proves that sufficient kinetic energy could not have been created by the progressive collapse.

The idea that looking closely at video evidence holds the key to 'solving' the twin towers collapse is nonsense, and while member of the truth movement cling to this belief the debate will go nowhere.

The point is irrelevant because the South and North Towers did not fall down, unlike WTC 7. Instead, successive floors exploded with an energy that cannot be accounted for by gravity because the destruction started too high up for enough kinetic energy from falling to have been acquired to cause the enormous level of pulverisation and general destruction that was observed. To anyone but someone who is still in psychological denial or who has not looked at the video evidence in sufficient depth, this is so obvious that I wish I did not have still to make the point over seven years after it all happened (sigh!).

A claim made without any evidence being cited or any calculations offered to support it which would enable others to evaluate its worth.

Micpsi wrote:

Science proceeds not on the trust of people's claims but on the truly independent replication and corroboration of their findings. Anything less than that standard becomes religion, which is what much of 9/11 research is becoming.

You seem to be basically saying NIST will have no new evidence on the basis that they make up their own figures! I see Bushwacker has pulled you up on your criticisms of their previous work. Maybe the integrity of NIST is the only crucial point here - if they cannot be trusted then any report is worthless. If they can be trusted then we can await their report with some expectation.

No I assert NIST will have no new evidence because there is no new evidence. There are videos, photographs, the buildings blue prints, knowledge of the building contents including fuel and the (incomplete) knowledge of the extent of fire and debris damage.

How are they going to return a building which no longer exists and gather new evidence? They aren't. They have exactly the same set of data independent researchers have to work with - so I repeat - why the "holy grail" treatment? What makes NISTs position so favourable that we should ignore all other analysis until it is released? This is what you appeal for me to do at every turn of this conversation but you give me no good reason to do so.

As for NISTs work on the TTs , now I'm not one for leaping into bold, but I really feel this point needs to be emphasised so it is not ignored:

Do you, or do you not accept that the figures NIST used in their simulation (42 inches sag on floor assemblies, 700degree heating of steel) were not based on any testing whatsoever - that whether or not you claim they are "realistic" - there was no scientific testing involved in their selection?

Yes or No?

A key facet of the mind of the critic is the ability to accept without question excuses which are in the "dog ate my homework" category:

NIST state their expensive floor assembly tests were never meant to be used in the conclusion - they were a mere whim of fancy to see how the building would have reacted if all the fire proofing hadn't been blown off (a claim they never proved) - you buy it. You don't question the logic of spending large amounts of money on a test which would bear no relation on their conclusion.

But you cannot escape the fact that they did not spend a penny on throwing the 42 inch figure into their simulation. Would you not agree Alex, surley you agree (you seem to be rational) that the accuracy of the figures they claim actually contributed to the collapse they were investigating were more important than the accuracy of their "how would the building react to fire in completely different circumstances?" jaunt - a time consuming and expensive excericse for no apparent purpose. Can you not (please!) see this is a ridiculous and incredible excuse for abandoning their tests? This is frankly bizzare behaviour for a scientific investigation - testing for unrelated scenarios and no testing for the key claims of your report.

NIST state the tests they did on the temperature the steel reached were not representative because the steel only represented 1% of the steel they could have tested and so the tests were worthless.

But you cannot escape the fact that they did not then return and gather more steel and test it, despite most of it being recycled there is still a hangar of samples, the figure they came up with - AGAIN was simply plucked from thin air. I know you argue it is "realistic" but it is based on nothing real. As you well know, NIST stated at the time that they did their heat tests that the steel was selected with an emphasis on fire damage, and they were satisfied it would be all they needed. It did not show what they wanted it to show and so the tests were no good. It would be unscientific to go back and keep testing and testing and testing every damn scrap they could find until one came up with 700degrees - as it would show a desire to select the evidence which fitted the conclusion and disregard the rest. But that would still be more scientific than what they actually did - based their figures on nothing but an "well it could have been that temperature" attitude. To me this heavily sugegsts that they knew testing would not help their theory and they would only find steel which was affected by only by the fires and hence generally 250degrees and steel affected by incendiaries which would be far too hot and impossible to justify….

But to you - the dog DID eat the homework. OF COURSE they spent thousands on building floor assemblies and testing them for extreme fire damage over two hours just to see what fires would do to them in a tottally different scenario. WHY ON EARTH would they test floors under the actual conditions they claimed occurred. OF COURSE the steel they tested for heat was worthless - it was only 1% of the steel after all ITS FAR MORE SCIENTIFIC just to ascribe a number they figure could have been right and abandon the thouroughly unscientific "tests" and misleading "test results".

You really do buy the farm don't you?

Do I concede that buildings usually come straight down? I have only ever seen one example of this - a pancake collapse as a result of an earthquake in (I believe) Pakistan - with a stack of floors pretty much undamaged left at the bottom. Please furbish me with precedent of buildings collapsing straight down - I will not bore you with the over-used pictures of earthquake damaged buildings which have toppled - I'm sure you have been treated to them many times, but what do you say to them?

You say "gravity" should make the top of a building crash straight through the rest of the building? That is the path of most resistence and makes very little sense..._________________

Which direction would have been the path of least resistance?_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Do you, or do you not accept that the figures NIST used in their simulation (42 inches sag on floor assemblies, 700degree heating of steel) were not based on any testing whatsoever - that whether or not you claim they are "realistic" - there was no scientific testing involved in their selection?

Yes or No?

I have already pointed out that NIST conducted full scale fire tests on a number of mock-ups of WTC offices in order to validate their computer modelling. Here are the details. These showed temperatures of well over 700 C degrees for substantial periods.

You say "gravity" should make the top of a building crash straight through the rest of the building? That is the path of most resistence and makes very little sense...

My bolding.

Fire a high-velocity bullet at the steel door panel of a normal car and the "path of least resistance" would have the bullet fly off sideways. Yet - mysteriously - the bullet will take the difficult way and actually penetrate the steel.

My chimney stack collapses in an earthquake and smashes down through the roof, rather than taking "path of least resistance" and bouncing off it.

Far from making "very little sense", these examples make perfect sense. Your personal incredulity counts for nothing in the world of science.

You seem to be basically saying NIST will have no new evidence on the basis that they make up their own figures! I see Bushwacker has pulled you up on your criticisms of their previous work. Maybe the integrity of NIST is the only crucial point here - if they cannot be trusted then any report is worthless. If they can be trusted then we can await their report with some expectation.

No I assert NIST will have no new evidence because there is no new evidence. There are videos, photographs, the buildings blue prints, knowledge of the building contents including fuel and the (incomplete) knowledge of the extent of fire and debris damage.

How are they going to return a building which no longer exists and gather new evidence? They aren't. They have exactly the same set of data independent researchers have to work with - so I repeat - why the "holy grail" treatment? What makes NISTs position so favourable that we should ignore all other analysis until it is released? This is what you appeal for me to do at every turn of this conversation but you give me no good reason to do so.

I agree that no analysis should be ignored. But NIST are the only official body charged with making a thorough analysis of the WTC7 case. I certainly cannot make any grand claim that I know beyond any reasonable doubt what happened to the building, so would like to see their report.

In terms of evidence, NIST may or may not have access to direct evidence that we have not seen. But they will certainly have to produce evidence to prove their hypothesis, presumably based on tests and analysis of the structure and materials.

Quote:

As for NISTs work on the TTs , now I'm not one for leaping into bold, but I really feel this point needs to be emphasised so it is not ignored:

Do you, or do you not accept that the figures NIST used in their simulation (42 inches sag on floor assemblies, 700degree heating of steel) were not based on any testing whatsoever - that whether or not you claim they are "realistic" - there was no scientific testing involved in their selection?

Yes or No?

I'm not as familiar with the direct evidence of NIST's report as Bushwacker and others are. I would say though that I'm not sure the numbers are figures that NIST 'used', they are figures provided by their computer models - an important distinction I think. So to say that they were not based on tests is slightly misleading. Surely we agree that anything approaching a full-scale test of the WTC structure was out of the question for NIST.

Quote:

NIST state their expensive floor assembly tests were never meant to be used in the conclusion - they were a mere whim of fancy to see how the building would have reacted if all the fire proofing hadn't been blown off (a claim they never proved) - you buy it. You don't question the logic of spending large amounts of money on a test which would bear no relation on their conclusion.

This is quite a hard allegation to prove or disprove - what's your evidence for believing it? Where is it proven that their floor assembly tests served no purpose to their conclusion? I agree that (at least some of) the tests do not directly corrolate with their suggested state of the floor assemblies in the towers, but NIST never ever claimed that they were. The fact that you do not see their use does not mean that they were useless to NIST.

Quote:

But you cannot escape the fact that they did not spend a penny on throwing the 42 inch figure into their simulation. Would you not agree Alex, surley you agree (you seem to be rational) that the accuracy of the figures they claim actually contributed to the collapse they were investigating were more important than the accuracy of their "how would the building react to fire in completely different circumstances?" jaunt - a time consuming and expensive excericse for no apparent purpose. Can you not (please!) see this is a ridiculous and incredible excuse for abandoning their tests? This is frankly bizzare behaviour for a scientific investigation - testing for unrelated scenarios and no testing for the key claims of your report.

Again I don't think they threw the 42 inch figure into their simulation. Nor do I believe it was a magic figure that they state is the ultimate result of their analysis - I believe all estimates for the sagging were within ranges based on different scenarios of fire damage. Where is the evidence that they abandoned their tests?

While I question your points here, I also accept that NIST carried out their analysis on the basis that the building collapsed. I don't think it was ever their brief to prove that the building collapse, only to discover why. I accept that this may not please the truth movement, though I would defend NIST for basically fulfilling their own brief rather than inventing another.

Quote:

Do I concede that buildings usually come straight down? I have only ever seen one example of this - a pancake collapse as a result of an earthquake in (I believe) Pakistan - with a stack of floors pretty much undamaged left at the bottom. Please furbish me with precedent of buildings collapsing straight down - I will not bore you with the over-used pictures of earthquake damaged buildings which have toppled - I'm sure you have been treated to them many times, but what do you say to them?

You say "gravity" should make the top of a building crash straight through the rest of the building? That is the path of most resistence and makes very little sense...

We are back to a basic scientific principle on which I believe you are categorically wrong. The truth movement repeatedly say that the path of most resistance was through the rest of the building on the basis that a building would provide more resistance than falling through the air to either side - sounds almost logical for about a second, but utterly illogical under any consideration. And that is because such a simplistic assumption ignores the forces of gravity acting on the falling debris - the path of most resistance would be for the debris to travel straight upwards and totally defy the force of gravity. The path of least resistance is straight down UNLESS the building below provides such resistance to the falling debris that it is forced to the side.

I should add once more that if you have ever seen footage of any controlled demolition, you have seen a collapse that goes straight down. Because that is what a CD is, an induced collapse.

Alex, I'm at work and will read your whole post later - just to say now -

Quote:

they are figures provided by their computer models - an important distinction I think

No - they were the figures they entered into their computer models - that's the distinction you really need to understand...

To believe that I would have to see proof, either by reference to the NIST report or the commentary on it which you are citing to make the claim. I can find the 42 inches that you are referring to, but it will take me time to understand what it represents.

I've had more chance now to consider your points on NIST specifically, and more time to read around the subject a bit.

Stefan wrote:

NIST state their expensive floor assembly tests were never meant to be used in the conclusion - they were a mere whim of fancy to see how the building would have reacted if all the fire proofing hadn't been blown off (a claim they never proved) - you buy it. You don't question the logic of spending large amounts of money on a test which would bear no relation on their conclusion.

NIST hasn't admitted to doing anything as a whim of fancy. True, the floor assembly tests were not supposed to be taken as directly correlating with the conditions the WTC floor assemblies had to withstand, as NIST readily explains - it is only the truth movement that has tried to draw a comparison between a 3 inch sag (the least sag of the four assembly tests undertaken) and a 42 inch sag (the maximum in one of their charts). Really you cannot have your cake and eat it as well - you cannot accuse NIST of inflating a sag discovered in a test while also saying that the tests were never used by NIST - the two accusations cannot both be true.

NIST explain why they undertook the tests. From Science Daily...

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, “These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed.”

“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected,” Sunder said to a group that gathered to watch yesterday’s final test at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Ill. “Our investigation’s final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the aircraft-damaged towers’ ability to resist the fire,” Sunder said.

So the tests which you claim that NIST did for no reason, they claim they gained 'valuable insight' from. He is saying that it is the relative differences between the tests that are key, and not necessarily just the figures themselves. Sunder also explains just how different the actual conditions were - he doesn't mention here but others have noted that the tests are not necessarily scaleable. And also a 3 inch sag in a 17 foot truss in a test does not equate to a 3 inch sag on a truss of a much bigger size on a WTC floor. And nor has NIST ever pretended such.

Quote:

But you cannot escape the fact that they did not spend a penny on throwing the 42 inch figure into their simulation. Would you not agree Alex, surley you agree (you seem to be rational) that the accuracy of the figures they claim actually contributed to the collapse they were investigating were more important than the accuracy of their "how would the building react to fire in completely different circumstances?" jaunt - a time consuming and expensive excericse for no apparent purpose. Can you not (please!) see this is a ridiculous and incredible excuse for abandoning their tests? This is frankly bizzare behaviour for a scientific investigation - testing for unrelated scenarios and no testing for the key claims of your report.

NIST did not abandon their tests. Neither have I seen any evidence that they threw the 42 inch figure into their models. By the way, this 42 inch figure seems to be a figure pulled out almost at random from the masses of information and data that NIST provides in their reports. You are assuming that there is a valid test for the 'key claims' of their report - presumably you would like them to fly another jet into a mock-up of the WTC to test what would happen. Is this a reasonable thing to expect? The claim you are disputing is that their computer model is accurate - exactly what test would you like to see carried out to prove or disprove that? Anything subscale presents its own set of problems, and anything to scale is prohibitively expensive and difficult.

Quote:

NIST state the tests they did on the temperature the steel reached were not representative because the steel only represented 1% of the steel they could have tested and so the tests were worthless.

But you cannot escape the fact that they did not then return and gather more steel and test it, despite most of it being recycled there is still a hangar of samples, the figure they came up with - AGAIN was simply plucked from thin air. I know you argue it is "realistic" but it is based on nothing real. As you well know, NIST stated at the time that they did their heat tests that the steel was selected with an emphasis on fire damage, and they were satisfied it would be all they needed. It did not show what they wanted it to show and so the tests were no good. It would be unscientific to go back and keep testing and testing and testing every damn scrap they could find until one came up with 700degrees - as it would show a desire to select the evidence which fitted the conclusion and disregard the rest. But that would still be more scientific than what they actually did - based their figures on nothing but an "well it could have been that temperature" attitude. To me this heavily sugegsts that they knew testing would not help their theory and they would only find steel which was affected by only by the fires and hence generally 250degrees and steel affected by incendiaries which would be far too hot and impossible to justify….

Utter speculation - your bias is obvious here. All of the steel they tested was consistent with their models. They barely recovered any steel from the impact areas - it may seem convenient to a conspiracy theorist, but it is not direct evidence of any cover-up.

Quote:

But to you - the dog DID eat the homework. OF COURSE they spent thousands on building floor assemblies and testing them for extreme fire damage over two hours just to see what fires would do to them in a tottally different scenario.

This is to completely misrepresent the tests they did undertake, and the reasons they were undertaken. NIST has never deceived anyone on this point.

Quote:

WHY ON EARTH would they test floors under the actual conditions they claimed occurred.

Your criticism here is really with the use of computer modelling. Why not just smash up all computers and do things the old-fashioned way? Because there is no old-fashioned way of accurately modelling such conditions. You are basically saying "the standard industry practice is inherently wrong, and the truth movement know better". No, worse than that - "the standard industry practice is a sham, and the results are corrupt. Why? Because the truth movement says so!".

But rather than criticise the methodology that NIST did use to come up with their models for the fire and damage leading to collapse, you are simply attacking what seem to me irrelevances. The floor assembly tests were not directly relevant to the computer models, but that does not mean that the computer models are inherently wrong or made up - you are just taking two largely unrelated parts of a massive investigation and trying to create some sort of corrupting link between them.

Quote:

OF COURSE the steel they tested for heat was worthless - it was only 1% of the steel after all ITS FAR MORE SCIENTIFIC just to ascribe a number they figure could have been right and abandon the thouroughly unscientific "tests" and misleading "test results".

Which test results were misleading and which tests were unscientific? Who says the steel they tested was worthless? This is all conjecture - nobody outside of the truth movement has ever claimed that NIST abandoned their tests or misused the data from them - that is an unsubstantiated claim of the truth movement.

Let us take a step back towards reality. Do you accept that there was pre-collapse bowing? Do you accept that there is visual evidence of WTC floors sagging? Presumably you do as you have pored over the same visual evidence as the rest of us. Unless you think the photos are doctored. What is your theory on what caused the bowing of the perimeter columns and sagging of the trusses?

The point is irrelevant because the South and North Towers did not fall down, unlike WTC 7. Instead, successive floors exploded with an energy that cannot be accounted for by gravity because the destruction started too high up for enough kinetic energy from falling to have been acquired to cause the enormous level of pulverisation and general destruction that was observed. To anyone but someone who is still in psychological denial or who has not looked at the video evidence in sufficient depth, this is so obvious that I wish I did not have still to make the point over seven years after it all happened (sigh!).

My bolding.

What is your evidence of "pulverisation" apart from your subjective interpretation of some videos?

I guess you have not seen the many available photographs of a thick blanket of dust covering the streets in the WTC. Such fine dust could not have been created merely by mechanical pressure of falling material. It had to caused by high-explosives. Also, there are unexpectedly few large chunks of concrete visible in any of the photos of Ground Zero, compared with what typically exists when a building is demolished or when a building collapses after an earthquake. This is incompatible with gravity-driven collapse of floors. Of course, this has been commented upon by many but ignored by those who still accept the absurdity that a short fire in a skyscraper could cause it to fall down.

Instead of wrongly accusing me of making subjective interpretations, based upon videos, I suggest you ought to look at more photos of Ground Zero than you obviously have done and then you may realise that the area looked nothing like what one sees in controlled demolitions of tall buildings, or after earthquakes, even taking into account the height of the towers. The height of the debris field was far too low, indicating that much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust.

What is your evidence of "pulverisation" apart from your subjective interpretation of some videos?

Micpsi wrote:

I guess you have not seen the many available photographs of a thick blanket of dust covering the streets in the WTC. Such fine dust could not have been created merely by mechanical pressure of falling material. It had to caused by high-explosives.

Assertion, unsupported by evidence. In my opinion the collapse of many thousands of tons of building onto lightweight concrete floor pans will do the job much better than high explosives, anyway. And where (and how) would these "high-explosives" be placed? And how many? And why? Please explain.

Micpsi wrote:

Also, there are unexpectedly few large chunks of concrete visible in any of the photos of Ground Zero, compared with what typically exists when a building is demolished or when a building collapses after an earthquake. This is incompatible with gravity-driven collapse of floors. Of course, this has been commented upon by many but ignored by those who still accept the absurdity that a short fire in a skyscraper could cause it to fall down.

Warning! Warning! Dr Smith!! (my bolding)

The buildings were also smashed into by commercial airliners, virtually fully-laden with fuel, and travellng at max. speed.

You seem to have omitted those trivial facts from your in-depth analysis. Oh dear. I wonder why?

Micpsi wrote:

Instead of wrongly accusing me of making subjective interpretations, based upon videos, I suggest you ought to look at more photos of Ground Zero than you obviously have done and then you may realise that the area looked nothing like what one sees in controlled demolitions of tall buildings, or after earthquakes, even taking into account the height of the towers. The height of the debris field was far too low, indicating that much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust.

What is your evidence for this "much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust" claim? Hoffman's analysis? I'd really like to know.

Bushwacker has already posted a photo of macro concrete remains at GZ. There are many such photos. Here's another :

this concrete was pulverised to dust agruement is clearly taken out of context.

two things are clear that only a liar would deny,

1. not every last scrap of concrete was turned into fine dust.

2. the rest was.

You just stated the obvious.
"Some of that pile of fruit is apples. The rest isn't."

marky 54 wrote:

to deny a lot of the concrete was pulverised is like denying the earth is round. all video evidence shows manhatten covered in inches of dust that took weeks if not months to fully settle.

Really? That would depend on your definition of "a lot of", wouldn't it?

Have you ever read any studies of the fine dust that drifted over Manhattan? Studies that analysed the dust you speak of? It contained relatively little concrete, consisting mainly of gypsum from the partition walling of the buildings, fibreglass from insulation, paper fibres, soot and so on.

marky 54 wrote:

the reason i ask is because if somebody says the concrete was pulverised to dust, its taken to mean ALL and argued against in a way that would suggest NONE.

Nobody has proposed none or even suggested none. If you can find such a claim, please quote it. I don't think you'll succeed. Obviously 100+ storey buildings - containing a lot of lightweight concrete - will generate powdered concrete when they fall. What else would anybody expect?

So-called "truthers" have proposed (and I quote) "the enormous level of pulverisation" and attribute it to high-explosives.

The concrete was mainly in the floors. The floors were enormous. Placing explosive charges within the floors wouldn't even make any sense for a CD conspiracy. They are irrelevant to the basic act of bringing down the buildings. Get it moving and the collapse is bound to follow. The floors couldn't hold it up once it was going, as their main structural purpose was bracing the outer walls against the inner core to cope with wind load (apart from being a place for people to work, naturally).

And, what's more, it would be a monstrous amount of work to place explosive charges throughout the floor areas of those buildings. Monstrous and utterly pointless.

this concrete was pulverised to dust agruement is clearly taken out of context.

two things are clear that only a liar would deny,

1. not every last scrap of concrete was turned into fine dust.

2. the rest was.

You just stated the obvious.
"Some of that pile of fruit is apples. The rest isn't."

marky 54 wrote:

to deny a lot of the concrete was pulverised is like denying the earth is round. all video evidence shows manhatten covered in inches of dust that took weeks if not months to fully settle.

Really? That would depend on your definition of "a lot of", wouldn't it?

Have you ever read any studies of the fine dust that drifted over Manhattan? Studies that analysed the dust you speak of? It contained relatively little concrete, consisting mainly of gypsum from the partition walling of the buildings, fibreglass from insulation, paper fibres, soot and so on.

marky 54 wrote:

the reason i ask is because if somebody says the concrete was pulverised to dust, its taken to mean ALL and argued against in a way that would suggest NONE.

Nobody has proposed none or even suggested none. If you can find such a claim, please quote it. I don't think you'll succeed. Obviously 100+ storey buildings - containing a lot of lightweight concrete - will generate powdered concrete when they fall. What else would anybody expect?

So-called "truthers" have proposed (and I quote) "the enormous level of pulverisation" and attribute it to high-explosives.

The concrete was mainly in the floors. The floors were enormous. Placing explosive charges within the floors wouldn't even make any sense for a CD conspiracy. They are irrelevant to the basic act of bringing down the buildings. Get it moving and the collapse is bound to follow. The floors couldn't hold it up once it was going, as their main structural purpose was bracing the outer walls against the inner core to cope with wind load (apart from being a place for people to work, naturally).

And, what's more, it would be a monstrous amount of work to place explosive charges throughout the floor areas of those buildings. Monstrous and utterly pointless.

i simply asked what level of pulverisation critics think there was, or (if known) how much it was.

why you get into a major arguement about it and go on as though what other people have said must be what i think i'll never know.

its a simply question. what level of pulverisation was there at the towers?

im not intrested in the cause.

you've made it obvious you do not think its none, but how much do you think it was?

Quote:

Nobody has proposed none or even suggested none.

the impression i get from all the visual evidence is that the pulverisation of the towers tips over the half way point at least. but the figure i have in my head is about 70-80% including both towers but excluding steel.

now it is only a rough calculation going by what evidence i have seen. so am i wrong to be thinking of figures that high?

this is the only purpose of asking, because if i am wrong, then what level of pulverisation do critics think there was?

what level of pulversation am i safe to say whilst being factual or more realistic in your mind?

and why do you come to that figure?

just to be clear, i am not saying my calculation is correct, but when i look at the collapse or the photos after collapse that is a rough figure i'd estimate.

so the purpose here is to see how far apart we all are with our estimates for pulverisation, and to see what critics would consider a realistic figure.

it matters, because 10% pulverisation takes less energy than 90%.

so is my thinking wrong? if so how wrong.

what have i not took into consideration if i estimate 70% but critics estimate say 30%?

He cites references that analysis of some dust samples showed that it was made up of 40% concrete. He also estimates that 90% of the concrete stayed within the footprint of the building during the collapse. But I'm not sure whether he knows how much of that was pulverised, because he is basing his estimates on the amount of dust found elsewhere.

Quote:

the impression i get from all the visual evidence is that the pulverisation of the towers tips over the half way point at least. but the figure i have in my head is about 70-80% including both towers but excluding steel.

now it is only a rough calculation going by what evidence i have seen. so am i wrong to be thinking of figures that high?

this is the only purpose of asking, because if i am wrong, then what level of pulverisation do critics think there was?

what level of pulversation am i safe to say whilst being factual or more realistic in your mind?

and why do you come to that figure?

just to be clear, i am not saying my calculation is correct, but when i look at the collapse or the photos after collapse that is a rough figure i'd estimate.

so the purpose here is to see how far apart we all are with our estimates for pulverisation, and to see what critics would consider a realistic figure.

I would say that it would be almost impossible to estimate, to any degree of accuracy, from visual evidence of the collapse, how much of the concrete was pulverised.

Quote:

it matters, because 10% pulverisation takes less energy than 90%.

so is my thinking wrong? if so how wrong.

what have i not took into consideration if i estimate 70% but critics estimate say 30%?

I think the key point with pulverisation is whether it is possible as part of a progressive collapse. Greening's paper seems to make it fairly clear that it is, and that more than enough energy was available during the collapse to do it.

I would say that it would be almost impossible to estimate, to any degree of accuracy, from visual evidence of the collapse, how much of the concrete was pulverised.

but i was not asking for accuracy, just an estimate going on what you can see at the scene and in your opinion, unless there is factual calculations available that say it was x amount for sure.

the point is critics need to decide if there was pulverisation of large quanties of the concrete or not. when ever somebody says that the concrete was pulverised, critics link the same photo's of small sized pieces of concrete as if to prove or say that the pulverisation of concrete claim is false or wrong.

my understanding is if people are honest, there was pulverisation of concrete but it was not all of it, so the only arguement can ever be how much.

hence the reason i ask for critics to give their opinion. maybe then i'd beable to understand why they always argue against it when somebody mentions it, when pulverisation is a fact, even the link you provide says so.

however i knew the esitmate in critics opinion would be dodged with excuses. ok nobody has to answer, i respect that, but i really do not see the problem with just giving a honest estimate in your opinion. nobody is going to think its a fact.

He cites references that analysis of some dust samples showed that it was made up of 40% concrete.

Quote:

Micpsi wrote:

Instead of wrongly accusing me of making subjective interpretations, based upon videos, I suggest you ought to look at more photos of Ground Zero than you obviously have done and then you may realise that the area looked nothing like what one sees in controlled demolitions of tall buildings, or after earthquakes, even taking into account the height of the towers. The height of the debris field was far too low, indicating that much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust.

SAM WROTE:

Quote:

What is your evidence for this "much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust" claim?

so surely if its common knowledge pulverisation is a fact, people can only be argueing about the amount.

or are they falsely argueing it never occured? i cannot tell sometimes.

What is your evidence for this "much of the material had been literally pulverized into dust" claim?

so surely if its common knowledge pulverisation is a fact, people can only be argueing about the amount.

or are they falsely argueing it never occured? i cannot tell sometimes.

Fair enough.
But to even take a stab at quantifying this, we need to define what we're talking about. So:

1. What is meant by "dust" ? The common meaning is small particles that can easily be blown around. We have quite a lot of this on the tables etc of our house at the moment because there's building work going on. Dust will accumulate on the top of a wardrobe and waft behind stuff on a high shelf.

2. Does 'dust' preclude anything the size and weight of a grain of sand? From the everyday meaning of 'dust' in 1. above I'd say it does. We also have some gritty sand on our floors and carpets from the builder's boots (and ours), but it doesn't settle on the telephone (for example), because the grains are too big for them to float around.

3. What are we including when calculating our percentage?
Only concrete? I ask because the dust clouds billowing around Manhattan on 9/11 contained relatively little concrete.

Truthers cheerfully make claims such as "much of the concrete was pulverised into dust", but never define "dust" or "much of". Maybe you can?

the point is critics need to decide if there was pulverisation of large quanties of the concrete or not.

I disagree - critics don't have to do anything of the sort. As it is nigh impossible to estimate I don't see the point anyway. The important point is whether pulverisation could occur as part of a collapse.

I understand that Richard Gage of ae911 thinks that 98% of the concrete was turned to dust and blown outside the footprint of the building. I'd love to know how he worked that out.

Fair enough.
But to even take a stab at quantifying this, we need to define what we're talking about. So:

1. What is meant by "dust" ? The common meaning is small particles that can easily be blown around. We have quite a lot of this on the tables etc of our house at the moment because there's building work going on. Dust will accumulate on the top of a wardrobe and waft behind stuff on a high shelf.

i'd say anything that stayed airbourne after the collapse.

Quote:

2. Does 'dust' preclude anything the size and weight of a grain of sand? From the everyday meaning of 'dust' in 1. above I'd say it does. We also have some gritty sand on our floors and carpets from the builder's boots (and ours), but it doesn't settle on the telephone (for example), because the grains are too big for them to float around.

well look, if there is a word that describes floating particles better than 'dust' then maybe we should define what we call the huge cloud of fine particle debris from now on. my understanding of dust, is airbourne particles.

even when sand blows about it is called a dust storm.

Quote:

3. What are we including when calculating our percentage?
Only concrete? I ask because the dust clouds billowing around Manhattan on 9/11 contained relatively little concrete.

all the contents of the building that are airbourne, and all the material from the building not just concrete. or both? how much of the buildings were pulverised and how much of that was concrete.

the point is how much of the buildings were pulverised in your opinion including concrete.
i think we would all agree(well most of us) that all the steel survived and is present after collapse, so just anything else.

all im looking for is peoples opinions on how much of the buildings they think were pulverised. its nothing factual, your answer will not be taken as fact. im just intrested to see how far of i am compared to critics.

then i'll try to understand why im so far off, if i am. maybe i missed something?

Quote:

I ask because the dust clouds billowing around Manhattan on 9/11 contained relatively little concrete.

i am unsure of your source for this statement. the link alex provided says the clouds contained about 40% concrete. that is surly more than relatively little if true. also the amount of concrete in the dust cloud does not reflect how much of the concrete was pulverised. if a building was made of 10% concrete and 90% glass and it was pulverised into fine particles and then tested and they found 10% concrete in the dust, then it would suggest that 100% of the concrete was pulverised.

Last edited by marky 54 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

the point is critics need to decide if there was pulverisation of large quanties of the concrete or not.

I disagree - critics don't have to do anything of the sort. As it is nigh impossible to estimate I don't see the point anyway. The important point is whether pulverisation could occur as part of a collapse.

I understand that Richard Gage of ae911 thinks that 98% of the concrete was turned to dust and blown outside the footprint of the building. I'd love to know how he worked that out.

i think you've just found out what the point is. you state the point after saying you dont understand the point.

you say it's impossible to work out.

yet you say 98% is not likely. how would you know if it was not possible to work out?

obviously you have an idea or figure in your head. you just don't want to be honest about it.

Quote:

I disagree - critics don't have to do anything of the sort.

of cause they don't. however if you don't, people are just left puzzled as to what your argueing against when sombody mentions pulverisation of concrete.

you link small pieces of concrete or badly shattered lower level floors to prove what?

no pulverisation?

i mean obviously there was to anybody who is honest, so your just left looking like deniers of factual events.

if your going to argue against it at least be clear what your argueing about. like i said it can only ever be the amount that is in doubt. not wether it happened or not. if critcs want to keep coming across as denying the obvious thats fine, i could'nt give a nonsense.

i think you've just found out what the point is. you state the point after saying you dont understand the point.

you say it's impossible to work out.

yet you say 98% is not likely. how would you know if it was not possible to work out?

obviously you have an idea or figure in your head. you just don't want to be honest about it.

You're wrong. I don't have an idea or figure in my head - I am quite comfortable with having little or no idea what the proportion of pulverisation was. Greening's paper seems to indicate that there was enough energy around to pulverise all of the concrete if necessary.

I don't think 98% is more unlikely than any other figure - I simply question Gage's authority to provide such an accurate figure. I also note that if 98% of the concrete was outside the footprint of the building, what happens to the "the building fell in its own footprint" claims?

Quote:

Quote:

I disagree - critics don't have to do anything of the sort.

of cause they don't. however if you don't, people are just left puzzled as to what your argueing against when sombody mentions pulverisation of concrete.

you link small pieces of concrete or badly shattered lower level floors to prove what?

no pulverisation?

i mean obviously there was to anybody who is honest, so your just left looking like deniers of factual events.

if your going to argue against it at least be clear what your argueing about. like i said it can only ever be the amount that is in doubt. not wether it happened or not. if critcs want to keep coming across as denying the obvious thats fine, i could'nt give a nonsense.

Where I think you are on solid ground is that, of course, there was some pulverisation, as the analysis of dust samples seems to confirm. I don't think any critic here is trying to imply that there was absolutely no pulverisation as the towers came down.

The points of contention are here, with my answers.

Was there any 'significant' level of pulverisation of concrete? (My answer: unproven)

Was pulverisation possible during a collapse (rather than a CD)? (my answer: undoubtedly)

Was the pulverisation more than might be expected from a collapse? (my answer: it's not proven that there was)

And if so, what caused this pulverisation? (I don't think there is a rational answer to this, as there is no evidence of explosives)

i think you've just found out what the point is. you state the point after saying you dont understand the point.

you say it's impossible to work out.

yet you say 98% is not likely. how would you know if it was not possible to work out?

obviously you have an idea or figure in your head. you just don't want to be honest about it.

You're wrong. I don't have an idea or figure in my head - I am quite comfortable with having little or no idea what the proportion of pulverisation was. Greening's paper seems to indicate that there was enough energy around to pulverise all of the concrete if necessary.

I don't think 98% is more unlikely than any other figure - I simply question Gage's authority to provide such an accurate figure. I also note that if 98% of the concrete was outside the footprint of the building, what happens to the "the building fell in its own footprint" claims?

UPDATE: Apologies, but I feel I was misrepresenting a quote from Gage in my earlier posts. This is his quote, and it's not clear to me whether he's talking about 98% of the concrete or of the debris in general...

"Ninety thousand tons of struct... of concrete has been pulverized to a fine talcum powder, though these uhh, intense explosions, including its metal decking and the floor trusses that were supporting, it, uhh completely gone and blown outside the perimeter. Everything is blown outside the perimeter of the two twin towers, 98% of the debris on all of the floors."

However, there is lots of evidence of sections of the truth movement claiming that almost all of the concrete was pulverised. 911research.com for example...

Evidence indicates that the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the Twin Towers was converted almost entirely to dust.

Quote:

Quote:

I disagree - critics don't have to do anything of the sort.

of cause they don't. however if you don't, people are just left puzzled as to what your argueing against when sombody mentions pulverisation of concrete.

you link small pieces of concrete or badly shattered lower level floors to prove what?

no pulverisation?

i mean obviously there was to anybody who is honest, so your just left looking like deniers of factual events.

if your going to argue against it at least be clear what your argueing about. like i said it can only ever be the amount that is in doubt. not wether it happened or not. if critcs want to keep coming across as denying the obvious thats fine, i could'nt give a nonsense.

Where I think you are on solid ground is that, of course, there was some pulverisation, as the analysis of dust samples seems to confirm. I don't think any critic here is trying to imply that there was absolutely no pulverisation as the towers came down.

The points of contention are here, with my answers.

Was there any 'significant' level of pulverisation of concrete? (My answer: unproven)

Was pulverisation possible during a collapse (rather than a CD)? (my answer: undoubtedly)

Was the pulverisation more than might be expected from a collapse? (my answer: it's not proven that there was)

And if so, what caused this pulverisation? (I don't think there is a rational answer to this, as there is no evidence of explosives)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum